Appeal No. 2005-1411 Page 2
Application No. 10/340,772
(specification, page 1). Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced,
infra, in the opinion section of this decision.
The Applied Prior Art
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references of record in rejecting
the appealed claims:
Ewald, Jr. (Ewald) 4,244,486 Jan. 13, 1981
McCloughan 4,457,441 Jul. 3, 1984
Espedalen 4,743,742 May 10, 1988
The Rejections
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1, 2 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Ewald.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ewald in view of Espedalen.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ewald in view of McCloughan.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed September 21, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the brief (filed July 16, 2004) and reply brief (filed November 23, 2004)
for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007